Posted on 05/19/2008 1:50:52 PM PDT by PurpleMountains
I’ve written several columns about my skepticism regarding Darwinism. Each time I do I receive snooty comments attesting to my stupidity and my ignorance. The Darwinists never seem to want to discuss any of the points I have tried to make, just to ridicule the very thought that there may be some kind of guiding intelligence behind the structures, the amounts of information, the complexities, the fine balance and the mysteries of life and our universe.
If anything is subject to ridicule, it is the answer that the world’s leading proponent and defender of Darwinian dogma, Richard Dawkins, gave to Ben Stein when Stein asked him about the origin of life.
(Excerpt) Read more at forthegrandchildren.blogspot.com ...
Cue the “not this sh!t again” guy.
And I’m an anti-Darwinist.
Why does this issue keep showing up on a political BBS?
Because the ID crowd (or at least a subset of it) turned it into a political issue by pressuring political officials to support their cause.
Excellent question.
It got old 3 years ago.
Stepping back and looking at a bigger picture, this is a cultural issue, and the left is notorious for forcing their agenda through the political process.
Darwinism is simply another tool of the left to use to deconstruct the Christian worldview that made this country and society great.
Because it’s easier to ridicule those that do not hold to the evolution belief.
read later
It keeps showing up on a political site because the teaching of evolution as the method of species generation is a political argument more than a scientific one.
Apart from Scripture, man has no clue as to the origin of life or specific species. Scripture tells us that man is prideful and does not want to acknowledge God - Darwinist macro-evolution demonstrates this.
No sane person argues against “survival of the fittest” or “adaptation of species to their environment” - within the limits of the species. So-called micro-evolution.
But macro-evolution exists only in the vain imaginations of man. The many hoaxes perpetrated by advocates of this fairy tale demonstrate how desperate men are to “disprove” the Biblical revelation of Almighty God.
“...there may be some kind of guiding intelligence...”
Yes, there, certainly, may be. But the problem is that we have no way of really knowing. All of what we know is determined in our brains. Those brains are really very, very small — in our universe, smaller than an individual grain of sand on all the seashores of the world. Maybe that’s why I am always amazed at those who claim, in one way or another, to know the mind of God.
Practically every day, for the past 150 years, evidence reputed to ‘prove’ Darwinism has been shown to be invalid or fake...
I would challenge the author to name five fakes in the past 150 years. I'll even spot you two as a starter: Piltdown and Archaeoraptor.
It should be easy to come up with three more fakes if they are occurring "practically every day" -- that would leave a population of some 25,000-30,000 such examples to choose from.
Do we have to run through the entire spiel every time a thread shows up.
In the public discussions, the shouters on both sides leave little room for good discussion. Check this as one of the few I’ve found ...
http://home.planet.nl/~gkorthof/kortho13.htm#Author
How about Hagel’s embryos and the gray moths in England, quickly to add a couple?
There is no positive evidence for ID. The process of advancing ID is to discredit every other possible explaination. You have to hear the speil every time a thread shows up, because presenting the spiel is the reason for the thread.
Well said.
Darwinism in the mind of Hitler killed my father in WWII and millions of others who were considered ‘inferior’ in the struggle (mein kampf) for the survival of the ‘fittest’. Whatever your views about Darwins racist ideology, Hitler loved it as to others who view the survival of the fittest ideology as the basis of their political views.
That point might have been mentioned on previous threads.
Haeckel's drawings had some inaccuracies. These have been corrected. That is not an example of a fake. Source
The moths in England? What was fake about them? The photos may have been set up with moths on tree trunks for purposes of illustration, but what was illustrated was an accepted phenomenon. Source
I gotta admit. . .I had to hold both hands over my mouth to stifle my laughter when I saw this in "Expelled".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.